Nope.

At last month’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois declared, “America cannot sanction torture. It’s a very straightforward principle, and one we should abide by. Now, I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals and emergency situations, and I will make that judgment at that time. But we cannot have the president of the United States state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture.”

And surely Obama, as a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, ought to know that if he intends to reserve the right to “make that judgment at that time” in an emergency situation, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel will have to write a secret memo outlining his presidential authority to do so – which seems to be exactly what Bush has done.

Just contrast your comments with the content of this post. And bear in mind that you’re the one who chooses to chime in here. So, shouldn’t you address the content of the posts? Why do you need to attack W instead of defend Obama?

“Obama took time off from saluting our servicemen and women to take a swipe at his predecessor.”

That is what I’m reacting to. You conservatives are always amazed that progressives have anything to criticize GWB about.
I also resent you implication that Obama is another Bush. Bush and company overreacted to the horrific events of 9/11 because they paid absolutely no attention to any warnings that evil things were afoot. Obama is still committed to closing Guantánamo and has clearly stated that there will be no further torture of any captives. While I will agree that some of Obama’s recent decisions vis-a-vis the release of the photos and military tribunals and his seeming hesitance to deal with GLBT issues are greatly worrying, I can only come to the conclusion that these will be dealt with after clear and logical reasoning have been applied. After all he has not stated that he will not close Gitmo and there have been more positive statements from the administration about GLBT issues. GWB had 8 years to completely screw up the country, Obama hasn’t event been there for 6 months.

I was making a point about you, not him–wondering why you feel it incumbent on yourself to bring him up in the comment thread to a post that wasn’t about him.

You really are obsessed. And if you so convinced how bad he is, please show how Gates and Petraeus have debunked W’s policies and compare those allegedly “debunked” policies to those Obama has affirmed once in office though he campaigned against when when a candidate.

Thanks.

And recall, NJ, I’m looking for specifics.

What’s really sad:

Allowing 3,000+ people to die during the worst terrorist attack on this country while ignoring the warnings.

Which warnings would those be? Further, could you imagine what today would be like if your beloved lord BJ wasn’t banging interns instead of allowing the CIA to shoot UBL?

And then ADD points out that Il Douche wasn’t bashing Bush, but the entire country.

Much better.

Too funny.

Honestly: It seems some on the left, including the President of the United States, just can’t help themselves. They seem to feel it necessary to politicize everything, including Memorial Day. In his radio address Saturday, Obama took time off from……

I’ll just say this seems to be a pattern with Obama, saying that now that he’s President, the problems that existed in the past will just magically vanished if we do what he follow listen to him and adopt his policies. And before his advent, all was failure and betrayal.

As to the Labarbera comment, thanks for clarifying that. Acknowledged and appreciated.

I haven’t “met your challenge” because it has nothing to do with what I said and it has nothing to do with what Obama said. If I had claimed that a Republican president had criticized his predecessor like you say that Obama did then you would have a valid challenge. But he didn’t say it and I didn’t say it so your challenge is based on a fantasy. Please explain how “we, as a nation” is an attack on GW. EVERY single sentence that you quoted is on that ANY conservative could also have said and would not have been falsely accused of inappropriate words.

If somewhere else in Obama’s speech he did as you claim then that changes everything. But I’ll never know because I have no use for the useless babbling of any politician, right, left or whatever on an occasion such as this.

As I said before, Obama is going to give you tons of opportunities criticize his attitudes, words and actions. Creating one just makes you look petty and you are one of a tiny minority of “conservatives” on here that cannot usually be described that way.

Here, the issue is the President of the United States in his official function as Commander in Chief of our armed forces and Head of State of the United States of America trying to score political points in a statement which should be addressing to all Americans.

Once again, that ‘reasoning’ is totally absurd. How is it possible that there is that much of a difference between the job of President and the job of running for President that a statement such as the one you’re quoting can change from being appropriate to wildly offensive? Anyone can see what you’re doing here. You easily say that you wouldn’t mind if Obama said this when he was a candidate, in an attempt to establish some sort of levelheadedness or objectivity about the guy. It’s easy for you to say that because it is by definition an unverifiable claim for which there is no way for anyone to hold you accountable. Then you go on and criticize Obama thinking you’ve established some sort of fair-minded credibility. Well, you haven’t. Yes, context is important, and in this case, the context is that you’re an angry, disillusioned Republican desperately grasping for straws.

1. I would have stated explicitly that which was implicit (i couldn’t find a president saying it) earlier had you responded to the substance of my post as well as that “sin of omission”. I do appreciate your latest response for not just focusing on that aspect of my post.

2. I just don’t see it as “scor[ing] political points”. There’s an alternative theory of it (he was criticizing both the old liberal that distrusted the military and the inability of government to properly care for veterans) that isn’t Bush-centric at all. That you need to highlight the specific words “failed” and “betrayed” as codespeak for Bush-bashing seems evidence that your hypothesis is, at best, a hypothesis.

3. So if its that Obama as president should rise above petty politics , then others do not need to do so. In other words, McCain’s ok for saying what he said as is your persistent critic as is Peggy Noonan. I find that somewhat problematic…if the President is supposed to avoid politics, shouldn’t everyone? Everything the President does is, at some level, political, so why should his hands be tied when his critics’ hands are not? Had McCain said what he said this year instead of last year, should Obama have addressed it at all? Or just taken that political blow (and it would have been a big blow, possibly)?

I guess my point is this: your criticism is of Obama as a president and liberal politicizing memorial day not of Obama as a liberal policizing memorial day, because others have done the same politicizing but not been president at the time. I guess that *could* be a valid critique, but I don’t really think it’s a big deal at all, nor, as i’ve noted, do i think it’s political to claim that America has over the past decades, not been as supportive of veterans as it could/should be. And when Peggy Noonan, John McCain and myself agree, you should trust me that it probably isn’t a politically controversial stance:P

so it all hangs on those two words and whether or not they prove Obama’s a bush-basher. Call me apologetic, but i just don’t see it.

All that said, there’s another whole can of worms we could open up about what is and is not “political” (some would argue that the whole creation of memorial day is political in and of itself) and how that depends on whether or not one agrees that the statement is “true”. For example, when Bush spoke about the war on terror and veterans who died in Iraq, was that political? The left could argue it was because they didn’t see the war on terror as related to the war in Iraq, and that Bush had politicized memorial day in that case (like when he called Iraq a “terror regime” in 2005).

one’s view of what is political is defined, in large part, by where one stands.

but am glad you did answer my challenge. When I saw that you had commented, I was prepared to say, “answer my challenge and I’ll address your point.” Since you did. I will.

So, here goes. Context is key. If Obama had made the very statement I quoted above one year ago today, while campaigning for President, then while disagreeing the validity of his claims, i would say it was entirely appropriate. So, if McCain made the statement (attributed to him in the thread above) on the campaign trail–or on the Senate floor in pushing legislation, then it would be in order.

Here, the issue is the President of the United States in his official function as Commander in Chief of our armed forces and Head of State of the United States of America trying to score political points in a statement which should be addressing to all Americans.

I actually think you raise a valid point; I just would appreciate that you first address my challenge. You did that. And I appreciate it.

I can’t find a republican president taking a swipe at a predecessor. But that challenge is a completely arbitrary and tangential one because you aren’t criticizing Obama alone as a president who shouldn’t have politicized it (a claim that I would argue is ambiguous at best. We don’t know if it was directed at Bush or at the old, tired left that is still angry about Vietnam–a left that Obama’s been clear he’s trying to separate his idea of progressivism from), you’re making a wide claim about liberals who politicize memorial day (and anything else they can get their grubby hands on).

Except it was not hard at all to find a leading conservative politician (unless you want to excise McCain from the GOP) politicizing memorial day all of one year ago. So it seems like, at least in terms of memorial day, Obama’s not alone on making a political point–and McCain’s was much fiercer and much more clearly political.

And beyond that, your original challenge is inaccurate. Obama said “we, as a nation” not “the president” or “the past administration” or “republicans” or anything else. You can criticize him for being too negative about America as a whole, I guess.

It’s actually funny… I never read the other post you wrote, but the second paragraph echoes to me what Obama said:

“Regretting that we do not remember military heroes as much as we once did, Peggy Noonan…believes a correction is in order:”

So we don’t honor/remember them enough and pointing that out is ok and apolitical. Yet saying we failed to serve them as well as they serve us is somehow fundamentally different and political and a cheap shot?

You’re quoting me responding to a critics who leveled a charge. that’s the issue here. Let me repeat, he’s the one who said Republicans do the same thing. All I’m asking him to do is back himself up, but I guess, as you put it, that’s an impossible task.

I don’t care what he said. Republicans don’t do the same thing, they do worse. You’re outraged because you’re holding Obama and his statement to a ridiculous standard, then telling others that unless we can get you as outraged about something George Bush said, nothing that we say could possibly matter. You hand out ridiculous little tests like this all the time, like when you had a fit over Obama saying ‘people waving tea bags around’ and insisted that I demonstrated a time when Bush insulted his critics. Here I am wondering how anyone could be insulted by a statement like that, and you go on thinking you’ve made some grand point.

You routinely call for people commenting here to debate, not insult. But nearly all of your posts and subsequent comments are designed around making any potential political debates dependent upon some absurd, GOP-serving premise. You do it because frankly, you can’t win political arguments without appealing to some manufactured authority – in this case, an insincere and overblown feeling of indignation. This goes on everyday on this blog and in other conservative circles. Republicans truly are wrong about everything, so you rig the game to have a chance.

You, like NJ Liberal, then proceed to slam W instead of defending Obama with whom I take issue in the post. Wonder why that is. Can’t defend your own man?

So, quite your name-calling and defend the Democrat

Here’s the thing – there’s nothing to defend him against. If you think your allegation is credible or meaningful simply because you made it… well again, that is not how debate works. It’s a simple statement of fact that we haven’t done enough for our troops, and that’s true about presidencies before George Bush’s. It’s also true that George Bush’s presidency was particularly disastrous for veterans and the active military. If you’re going to get all upset about Obama allegedly offending…um, someone…. then where is the outrage over Bush sending thousands of our soldiers to die in a war made hopeless by his bumbling incompetence?

I’m not going to bother address you points since you offer them as an excuse for refusing to address mine.